- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7668 OF 2016(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KRISHNA PRASAD BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, LALBAGH, MANGALURU-03 NOW REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, VISHNUPRAKASH BUILDING, COURT ROAD, UDUPI-576101. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S.LAXMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNA SHANKAR SHETTY W/O LATE SHANKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SMT. RESHMA N SHETTY D/O LATE SHANKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT SRI. DEVI KRIPA HOUSE, ELINGE POST AND VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK-575001. 3. SRI. BALAKRISHNA @ BALA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVA, R/AT ABBAN THOTA, MUNDKOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574104. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 4. SRI. SUDHAKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTTI SHETTY, R/AT JALAJA NIVASA, SUBRAYA BENNI, MULLADKA, MUNDKOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK-574104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA NAYAK N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 IS SERVED; SRI. SHIVA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.180/2013 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, KARKALA. THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is by the Insurer - respondent No. 3, against the Judgment and Award dated 07.09.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Karkala in MVC.No.180/2013 (for short 'the Tribunal). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 3. It is the case of claimants that on 19.02.2012 around 10.45 p.m. deceased Raghavendra was riding his motorcycle bearing registration number KA-19-E-17 from Mundkoor towards Kinnigoli. At Jarigekatte of Mundkoor village, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20-C-4014 (for short 'Offending car') by its driver. As a result of impact, Raghavendra sustained grievous injuries and on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. 4. It is further contended that the deceased was running a bus and earning ₹35,000/- per month. He was unmarried and aged about 30 years. Claimant No.1 is mother and claimant No.2 is a younger unmarried sister of the deceased. They were depending upon earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, claimants prayed to award compensation of ₹ 20,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Respondent No. 2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending car. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement denied the contentions of the claimant. He has contended that said vehicle was falsely implicated by the claimants in this case just to claim the compensation. His vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and he denied other averments stated in the petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. driver of the offending car. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Respondent No.3 denied the said contentions of the petitioner and also contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in the case to claim the compensation. It is also contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The claimants to prove their case examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to 15. Respondents examined 5 witnesses as RW-1 to 5 and marked Exs.R1 to R9. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 8. After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred by involvement of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 30 years, his earnings as ₹6,250/-per month, added 30% of his income towards future prospects, deducted 50% of his income towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of '17' and awarded the compensation. 9. I have heard the arguments of learned advocates appearing for both the parties. 10. The learned advocate for the insurer read over the evidence of both the side parties and relied on the documents and submitted that these facts clearly indicates that vehicle belonging to respondent No. 2 was falsely implicated in this case. The FIR given by PW-2 clearly indicates that the rider himself was responsible for the accident. The offending vehicle was not at all involved in the incident. These facts were brought out in the cross examination of PW-1 to PW-3 and even the so called eye witnesses. as referred by PW-2 in the FIR, was also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 examined by the respondent. They have rebutted the case of the claimant, regarding the incident. These facts were not at all considered by the Tribunal and Tribunal was of the opinion that there is no need to decide the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in the Motor Vehicle Claim Petitions. Therefore, basing on the charge sheet and evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, held that accident occurred due to involvement of offending car. The said finding is erroneous. It is a false case registered by the claimants just to claim the compensation by falsely implicating the vehicle in collision with police and other concerned persons. In fact the incident had not at all taken place as stated in the charge sheet or as stated in the petition. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the claim petition. 11. The learned counsel for claimants supports impugned judgment and award. The learned counsel further submits that the investigating officer, who was examined as PW-3 in detail has stated about the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 investigation done by him. He also stated the manner in which he collected the materials to show that the very same vehicle was involved in the accident. She further stated that the said charge sheet has not been challenged by respondents. Therefore, they cannot challenge the same before this Court. It is sufficient to prove prima facie case about the accident and involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. Claimants have examined three witnesses and produced the documents and their case is supported by the charge sheet and its enclosures. Therefore, on the basis of the said materials, the Tribunal rightly accepted the case of the claimants and awarded compensation. It doesn't call for any interference by this Court. 12. The only question that arises for determination in this case is: i. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of the offending vehicle? ii. What order? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 13. My findings on the above point is in the Negative for the following reasons: 14. It is true that in the Motor Vehicle Compensation claim petitions, strict proof of negligence of driver of the vehicle is not required. It is also not required to prove the accident as it has to be proved in the criminal cases. In the criminal cases registered against the drivers of the offending vehicles, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the negligent act of the driver of the vehicle. But in the motor vehicle cases, it is suffice to prove that accident occurred due to involvement of the vehicle and to make owner of the vehicle liable, it is to be proved that accident was due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle. It is also true that in case of motor vehicle compensation cases, there is no need of application of strict rule of law. That does not mean that rule of law need not be followed. 15. It is true that whenever any person sustained grievous injuries or become disabled, or dies in a vehicle - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 accident everyone has got a sympathy towards such a injured or victim of the accident. At that time, normally people forgets as to who was at fault, but try to help the victims of the accident as well as dependents of the person who died in the accident. It appears that the present case is one of such instances, wherein police went out of the way and charge sheeted the driver of offending car might be with an intention that claimants may get some benefit. 16. At the cost of repetition, when a charge sheet is filed against the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident, prima facie it will be considered as true facts. On the basis of charge sheet and enclosures, as well as oral evidence the Tribunal may have to accept that the accident had taken place due to involvement of the offending vehicle. But when it is rebutted by the other side with cogent materials, the Tribunal has to consider them and appreciate the facts of the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. If there are sufficient materials to show that involvement of the vehicle itself is doubtful, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 Tribunal cannot blindly award the compensation on the basis of charge sheet laid by the concerned investigating officer. Therefore, in this case also, Tribunal has erred in not considering the sufficient materials placed on record by the respondent to show that the accident was not occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle. 17. The Motor vehicle compensation claim petitions are summary trial proceedings. However, in this case, it was conducted as if it was an original suit and both the parties have examined number of witnesses and produced number of documents in support of their respective contentions. In this case the petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1. She is the mother of the deceased and in her evidence she has stated about facts of the case stated in the claim petition and through her Ex.P1 to Ex- P-12 were marked. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness. 18. In her cross examination, she has stated that the complaint was given by PW2 and contents of the mahazar, complaint and information given at the time of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 inquest of dead body were also true. According to her, fact of accident was informed to her by her neighbor, one Lokesh and she did not enquire him about the manner in which accident had taken place. She pleads ignorance that accident had occurred due to negligence of her son. Since she is not an eye witness and she was unaware about the real fact of the accident, her evidence is not much helpful to the claimants to prove involvement of the vehicle. 19. To prove the involvement of the vehicle PW-2 was examined, who was complainant in this case. According to his evidence, on 19.02.2012 around 02.00 a.m., he got information from one Raghunath that Raghavendra while riding the motorcycle in a high speed due to skid of the vehicle, he fell down and sustained injuries. He was shifted to hospital at Kinnigoli. Therefore immediately he went to the hospital and found that Raghavendra by that time was dead. He met Praveen Madha, who was in the hospital and the said Praveen told him that on 19.02.2012 around 10.45 p.m., he saw - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 Raghavendra had fallen near the water channel sustaining severe injuries. Thereafter, he shifted him to the hospital and he lodged the complaint to police on 22.02.2012. 20. In Ex.P2, which was given by PW-2 to the police (FIR) it is stated that said Praveen Madha informed him that on 19.02.2012 around 10.45 p.m., he was going in his car from Jarike Katte towards Kinnigolli and at that time deceased was riding his vehicle in a high speed and he lost control, due to which the vehicle skid and the deceased fell down near the water channel. Immediately he went and found that the deceased sustained severe head injuries and he shifted the deceased in his car to the hospital. As per the evidence of PW-2, first information was lodged on the next day of the accident around 10 a.m. In Ex.P2 also, the said Praveen was said to be an eye witness to the incident, who had seen the said accident as stated above. 21. It appears on 25.02.2012, the entire scenario was changed. On the basis of rumours spread in the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 Mundakur village that vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 i.e, the offending vehicle hit the vehicle of Raghavendra as the result of which accident took place. Therefore, the documents drawn that is Ex-P3 spot mahazar, Ex-P7 - inquest mahazar indicates that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. As per FIR, Praveen actually witnessed the accident and gave information to PW-2, which was the basis of the complainant, but later this scenario was suddenly changed and Praveen became a circumstantial witness. Even in Ex-P2 it is stated that injured was shifted to the hospital in the vehicle of the Praveen. It is also worth to note that PW-3 who has partially investigated the matter, did not enquire as to who brought Raghavendra to the hospital or by which vehicle he was brought to the hospital. 22. PW-2 was thoroughly cross-examined by the respondent No.2 and 3. PW-2 in his cross-examination admits that according to contents of Ex-P2, Praveen was - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 an eye witness to the incident and he lodged the complaint on the basis of information given by Praveen. Praveen admitted Raghavendra to the hospital. During the inquest mahazar, his statement was recorded, wherein he has stated that his brother-in-law sustained head injury in the accident and there was no other reason for his death. Even he pleads ignorance as to who told him regarding involvement of the offending vehicle and driving of the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.1. Therefore, his evidence will not help the claimants to prima facie prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. 23. PW-3 in his evidence has stated that after PW-2 gave further statement, he enquired with Keshava and Balakrishna and came to know about the involvement of the offending car. He says that the said Praveen was not an eye witness to the incident. Even he says that he has not enquired as to who told PW-2 about involvement of the vehicle or Respondent No.1, Balakrishna was driving - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 the vehicle at the time of accident. In the examination-in- chief, PW3 says that PW-2 was unaware about the incident, helplessly gave complaint. It is pertinent to note that PW-2 in his evidence, nowhere stated that he was under the shock and gave some statement before the police without any basis. Therefore, it appears that PW-3, who is an investigating officer, in the rank of Circle Inspector Police has cleverly tried to patch up the lapses in the investigation. 24. Even PW-3 has not stated as to whether the offending car hit the motorcycle from the front side or back side, which is very much necessary for considering the investigation in question. Ex-P9, the seizure mahazar of the offending vehicle does not reflect that there was any damage to the motor cycle. Ex-P5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, it indicates that there were several damages towards the front portion of the vehicle. It appears the said vehicle fell into the channel. Therefore, there might be so damages to the front portion of the vehicle. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 25. The vehicle inspection report of the offending vehicle is also produced. But it is not independently marked. It appears both the Motor Vehicle Inspection Reports were together marked as Ex-P5. The Motor Vehicle Inspection Report produced by the claimants of the offending vehicle shows that there were few scratch marks at the right side of the body. If two speeding vehicles collided, then in all the probability there must be severe damage to both the vehicle. The said fact also leads to an inference that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. 26. In this case both owner as well as insurer seriously disputing the fact of accident and involvement of the vehicle. Admittedly, claimants are not eye witnesses to the incident. The so called eye witnesses from whom the information was received by the PW-2, had not supported the case of the prosecution or even the statement of PW- 2. According to the charge sheet, the only eye witness is one Mr. Keshava. He has not been examined by the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 claimants. Even PW-2 has not disclosed the name of the persons who informed him about involvement of the offending car in the accident or it was driven by respondent No.1 at the time of accident. 27. To rebutt the contentions of the claimant, the respondent No.2 himself was examined as RW-1. In his evidence he has stated that he has not at all employed respondent no. 1 as driver of the said vehicle. He also stated that on 19.02.2012 he was traveling in a (Matsakanda) train towards Mumbai and he returned on 22.02.2012 to his native place. He told to police that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. He also stated that respondent no.1 has lodged the complaint against concerned police officer before their superior officer for falsely involving his vehicle in the accident. Nothing was brought out in his cross examination to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 28. The Respondent No.1 himself was examined as RW2. In his evidence, he has denied that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He says that he lodged the complaint against the Police Officer before their superior officer that he was falsely implicated in this case. The said letter and reply to it by the superior officer were marked as Ex-R1 and R3. Claimants tried to make out a case that the advocate who was conducting the present litigation before the Tribunal on behalf of respondent No.2 was also appearing on his behalf in a criminal case. Therefore, both respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 were colluded. The said contention is not tenable. Merely, an advocate who was engaged by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal was also engaged by respondent No.1 to conduct his criminal case does not mean that the said vehicle was involved in the accident or contentions of RW-2 are false. 29. Respondents examined RW-3 who was a police Sub inspector serving in Karkala Rural Police Station and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 registered Crime No.18/2012. According to his evidence, as per the written complaint given by the PW-2, as per Ex.P2, he registered a case and he went to the spot of incident. The spot was shown by an eye witness i.e, Praveen and in the presence of witnesses he draw the mahazar and he conducted the inquest. At the time of inquest, PW-2 told him that the deceased himself was riding the vehicle in a high speed as well as in a rash and negligent manner as a result at Jarigekatte he lost control over the vehicle and it skidded and he fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and died due to the said injuries. He says that in Ex-P3 he has stated that Praveen was an eye witness. He does not know as to who corrected or overwritten/scored it. Respondent also produced the said Spot Mahazar. It is a certified copy obtained from the court at Ex-R5 and there is no such correction as it is made in Ex- P3. It indicates that at the time of filing before the Court someone must have scored the said - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 portion in Ex-P3. But original still remains as the Praveen as an eye witness to the incident. 30. Respondents No.2 and 3 taking a risk have examined the said Praveen Mada as RW4. In his evidence he has stated that he had not witnessed the accident. Someone told to PW-2 about the accident. He told the information of the accident to relative of PW-2. He does not know on what basis PW-2 lodged the complaint to police or given information to police regarding the incident, as stated in Ex.P2. He had not supported the contention of the respondent No.2. Therefore, he was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined. In his cross examination also he repeatedly says that he had not witnessed the incident. Therefore, it appears the claimants tried to plant him as an eye witness and when he refused to accept it he was considered as a circumstantial witness. 31. RW-4 is not much relevant witness. He is an officer of the insurance company and he deposed on the basis of available materials on record. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 32. On scanning of entire evidence placed before the Court both by claimants as well as respondent No.2, leads to an inference that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. Ex-P5 states there was no damage to the offending vehicle, which is not probable. The investigation by the police was very casual. On the basis of a rumour in the Mundakur market and in a liquor shop as well as hotels police believed that the vehicle of respondent No.2 was involved in the accident and on that basis charge sheeted the driver. All these materials show that the vehicle was implicated to help the claimants just to claim the compensation. 33. The Tribunal has not at all appreciated these materials. Assigning the reasons that the said facts has to be proved before the Criminal Court. But when an evidence is placed before the court disputing the involvement of the vehicle, it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider the same to fix liability on the owner and insurer of the vehicle to pay compensation. There are no other - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 materials to believe that said vehicle was involved in the accident, which is discussed in detail in above paragraphs. These facts doesn't show that the charge sheet was prima facie believable. Therefore, the trial judge erred in discarding the evidence available on record to consider the involvement of the vehicle. Hence, interference in the said finding is required. 34. Accordingly, I answer the above said points in favour of the insurer and pass the following: ORDER i. This appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and Award dated 07.09.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. Karakala MVC.No.180/2013 is set aside. iii. Petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is dismissed. iv. If any amount is deposited by the appellant insurer, same shall be refunded to the concerned insurance company and due identification. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26682 MFA No. 7668 of 2016 Send back the TCR along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2